Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

I think VSI should go for supporting it under a specific VMusing container files as disks. That would solve a lot oftechnical issues.

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

I think VSI should go for supporting it under a specific VMusing container files as disks. That would solve a lot oftechnical issues.Arne

Yes, it would. But there still might be issues with device drivers for thedisplay, keyboard, mouse, and such.

VSI has indicated that they were definitely going to support VMS on VMs.

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

I think VSI should go for supporting it under a specific VMusing container files as disks. That would solve a lot oftechnical issues.

Yes, it would. But there still might be issues with device drivers forthe display, keyboard, mouse, and such.

Wouldn't that be handled by the VM software, so that VMS sees astandard device no matter what the actual device is.

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

I think VSI should go for supporting it under a specific VMusing container files as disks. That would solve a lot oftechnical issues.

That's how I anticipate it. VMware, VirtualBox and the others present aknown set of hardware devices (video, ethernet/wireless device, disktypes etc) to the client.

No matter what the underlying physical hardware is, VM clients only needto be able to talk to the subset provided by the virtual machineenvironment.

Disk containers bring other advantages such as ease of backups andportability from one place to another. Snapshots can also be doneeither by the host VM software or where supported by the host's own filesystem (ZFS, btrfs, Apple's upcoming file system when that arrives).

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.Simon.

I cannot imagine software development on a notebook, unless remote monitor,keyboard, and mouse are used, and then why have a notebook?

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.Simon.

I cannot imagine software development on a notebook, unless remotemonitor, keyboard, and mouse are used, and then why have a notebook?

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

I cannot imagine software development on a notebook, unless remotemonitor, keyboard, and mouse are used, and then why have a notebook?

I would think most development today are done on laptops.

One laptop with your stuff.

Three monitors + keyboard & mouse in office.

At least one monitor + keyboard and mouse at home.

Hopefully one monitor + keyboard and mouse in companies otherfacilities.

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

I cannot imagine software development on a notebook, unless remotemonitor, keyboard, and mouse are used, and then why have a notebook?

I would think most development today are done on laptops.

I wouldn't be so sure. There are companies with explicit "no source codeon laptops" policies (yes, even with full disk encryption) on the groundsthat mobile devices can occasionally be more mobile than their owners wantthem to be ... of course, then you need to provide suitable environmentswhere using the laptop as a glorified mobile terminal for developmentis actually feasible. And yes, such setups do exist.

Kind regards,Alex.

--"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls andlooks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

I cannot imagine software development on a notebook, unless remotemonitor, keyboard, and mouse are used, and then why have a notebook?

I would think most development today are done on laptops.

I wouldn't be so sure. There are companies with explicit "no source codeon laptops" policies (yes, even with full disk encryption) on the groundsthat mobile devices can occasionally be more mobile than their owners wantthem to be ... of course, then you need to provide suitable environmentswhere using the laptop as a glorified mobile terminal for developmentis actually feasible. And yes, such setups do exist.

The most important thing: support a proper keyboard! It should bepossible to plug in a USB LK keyboard and have it just work out of thebox like an LK worked on VAX or Alpha with no hoops to jump through.

Post by Simon ClubleyThere's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

There was the Tadpole. I think that many people would buy one if theywere cheap enough.

Onboard comms devices such as Wifi and Ethernet for one. There mightalso be integrated chipsets to deal with. I'm not sure if the latterone, on laptops built over the last 2-3 years, is still the problemit once was.

The mobile broadband USB dongles should be quite easy to get workingwith a modern VMS as they have mostly standards based interfaces.The older ones present a dial-up PPP interface so you would need dialupsoftware on VMS (ie: a VMS version of something like kppp).

The newer ones implement the USB NCM protocol so they just look likeanother Ethernet port and you typically manage the device via aweb browser. The main problem is sending the right SCSI command todo the mode switch and that is pretty much a (mostly) solved problem.

Wifi however is a very different matter. As Bob says, it's a complicatedprotocol stack, but the real problem is that the hardware programminginformation is simply very hard to come by unless you are a majorplayer. It's a world of strict NDAs and there's no real public datasheetswith detailed programming information I have ever been able to find.

As Arne and co have said, the only real chance here is to run VMS ina VM and have the drivers supplied by the VM itself.

Post by Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)The most important thing: support a proper keyboard! It should bepossible to plug in a USB LK keyboard and have it just work out of thebox like an LK worked on VAX or Alpha with no hoops to jump through.

Post by Simon ClubleyThere's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.

There was the Tadpole. I think that many people would buy one if theywere cheap enough.

I would like to see VMS running directly on the hardware and be justanother boot menu entry on the laptop boot screen but due to thedriver situation and the issues with multiple partitions it'sprobably going to have to run within a VM.

Simon.

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Post by Simon ClubleyI would like to see VMS running directly on the hardware and be justanother boot menu entry on the laptop boot screen but due to thedriver situation and the issues with multiple partitions it'sprobably going to have to run within a VM.Simon.

My guess is that we will simply never see VMS native on a laptop.Too much work and probably no business case for VSI.

If at all, it will run in a VM. A VM environment on a laptop is notdiffernt (from VMS point of view) then the same VM on a large server.So if VMS can run in a VM (at all), it will also "run" on a laptop,if that specific VM is also supported on laptops.

Post by Simon ClubleyI would like to see VMS running directly on the hardware and be justanother boot menu entry on the laptop boot screen but due to thedriver situation and the issues with multiple partitions it'sprobably going to have to run within a VM.Simon.

My guess is that we will simply never see VMS native on a laptop.Too much work and probably no business case for VSI.If at all, it will run in a VM. A VM environment on a laptop is notdiffernt (from VMS point of view) then the same VM on a large server.So if VMS can run in a VM (at all), it will also "run" on a laptop,if that specific VM is also supported on laptops.

If you forget consumer-class stuff (which typically has asales lifetime of a few weeks and a support lifetime notthat much longer, and therefore enterprise class usage isnot going to happen) and look instead at business-classstuff, the picture may change a little. Better design,more robust build, longer lifetime, range of options (espprocessor, screen resolution, maybe docking station), etc.

Obviously the price (when new) of business class stufftends to be rather more expensive than new consumer stuff,which might be a problem to some. For the budget-consciouse.g. hobbyist there have historically been decent dealsavailable on refurbished business class stuff which hascome to the end of its original owner's useful life.

Business class laptops typically also come with the optionof Win7 rather than Win10, and some are even qualified foruse with OSes other than Windows. Imagine that.

Never had one where VMware didn't work, though licencingchanges ($$$ for Player?) mean VMware is not currently ofinterest to me.

I've used this tactic for years, for personal use, butit may not suit everyone.

Interesting question, I would counter how many people run Windows server2012 on a Laptop and why would they?

I speculate the initial target market for X86 OpenVMS with be the highvolume server market. In HPE systems like DL servers and BL bladesand hopefully they can get in on the Synergy market and other vendorsX86 servers.

Rather than scale down to the single user systems with a few cores , Ithink a better question would be how large a system can OpenVMS scaleup to? Can it run on an 8 socket or higher platform like a DL980G7, oran MC990x or Superdome X platforms with cpu counts up into the 200+range and terabytes of Memory and lots of fast PCIe IO devices.

It would be nice to see a SAP HANA port to x86 OpenVMS , that would be agreat niche market for OpenVMS

Interesting question, I would counter how many people run Windows server2012 on a Laptop and why would they?

I'm going back 5-6 years here, but plenty of folks doing SQL Serverdevelopment were using multicore laptops with 24GB or greater RAM, oftenwith more than one disk. Moving to today, those folks are probablyusing similar kit but with SSDs; almost certainly some of them willbe renting resources on the likes of Amazon as well.

Interesting question, I would counter how many people run Windows server2012 on a Laptop and why would they?

I'm going back 5-6 years here, but plenty of folks doing SQL Serverdevelopment were using multicore laptops with 24GB or greater RAM, oftenwith more than one disk. Moving to today, those folks are probablyusing similar kit but with SSDs; almost certainly some of them willbe renting resources on the likes of Amazon as well.--A supercomputer is a device for turning compute-bound problems intoI/O-bound problems. ---Ken Batcher

About 6 years ago I ran multiple VM's on an HP Elitebook with 16 gb of memory

A few years after I purchased it I upgraded the HDD to an SDD and gave it a new lease of life. It's still fast enough to do most things I want except it's a heater :-(

I purchased one at the same time for a friend who used it do do Ms software development on. He now uses a Surface pro and does his development work on an Azure instance instead

There are laptops around that you can kit out with 32 or even 64 gb of ram now

I run (or did, a while ago) run a small VMS cluster on an HP microserver with 16gb of ram (alpha, double virtualised). It's ok for playing around with VMS

I'd love to run a small VMS cluster on a fully kitted out x86 laptop in the future but I seriously doubt we will see VMs run native on one and even under esxi it might be a challenge to find a laptop that esxi works well with. Perhaps Zen might be better? (I confess I have only used Zen, never tried installing it)

VMS on x86 laptops as a stepping stone on the way to VMS on mobile (native) :-)

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.Simon.--Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Simon,

Most likely, under various VM packages (e.g., VMware, Virtual Box). It has been said for a long time that the VM world is a target.

Direct support of laptop hardware is a challenge as there are numerous devices, often changing quickly. WiFi drivers are relatively complex. "Just another adapter" is true, but the code size for the Windows drivers belies the point. These are large drivers with additional complexities. Linux, which has far bigger exposure at the moment, is often chronically behind on laptop device support.

As to viability of laptop-based development. My present laptop (which is neither the fastest nor the largest) has more resources in all dimensions than most of my OpenVMS stations. Running an emulated Alpha environment, it is a more than adequate workstation when I am on the road.

Post by Simon ClubleyThe question is simple enough: will x86-64 VMS run on a laptop ?However, it opens up a range of questions including graphicsadapter and other hardware support, battery power managementand maybe Wifi/mobile communications device support.I can also see problems unless the new VMS filesystem will playnicely with other filesystems and operating systems installed onother partitions on the laptop's hard drive.IOW, will the new VMS filesystem be installable into a partitionon a hard drive or will it still require the full drive asODS-2/ODS-5 do ?There's not really going to be a major market for VMS on a laptop,but I can see it being useful for various things, including softwaredevelopment and demos when you are moving between locations.Simon.

We had this topic before in the group.

It would be possible for VSI to design a notebook/desktop version ofOpenVMS. Modern Intel desktop and mobile CPU's have excellent emebeddedGPU's, no need for an extra graphics card.

The chipsets for these CPU's have alomost everything you need, SATAcontroller, NIC, USB etc.

So there is a well defined set of hardware that would make it*relatively* easy for VSI.

However.....

Running it on a VM would be better. You could use any notebook/desktopthat is supported by the VM, and you could run Linux or Windows at thesame time. That would give you a browser also, VMS has no browser.

A long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

So a VM with VMS, Windows and/or Linux is the best solution. A modernquadcore notebook CPU can handle 64GB, more than sufficient for such aconfiguration.

Post by Dirk MunkRunning it on a VM would be better. You could use any notebook/desktopthat is supported by the VM, and you could run Linux or Windows at thesame time.

But then you would also have to run the underlying OS.

Post by Dirk MunkThat would give you a browser also, VMS has no browser.A long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

An entire OS and various layered products are ported to a completelydifferent hardware platform---doable. A modern browser---undoable?

Maybe there is a middle path: a browser which doesn't support all addonsbut is good enough for 95%.

Post by Dirk MunkRunning it on a VM would be better. You could use any notebook/desktopthat is supported by the VM, and you could run Linux or Windows at thesame time.

But then you would also have to run the underlying OS.

Post by Dirk MunkThat would give you a browser also, VMS has no browser.A long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

An entire OS and various layered products are ported to a completelydifferent hardware platform---doable. A modern browser---undoable?

It is not an techincal issue. Its about having a business case or not.

Post by Dirk MunkA long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

An entire OS and various layered products are ported to a completelydifferent hardware platform---doable. A modern browser---undoable?

Post by Dirk MunkA long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

An entire OS and various layered products are ported to a completelydifferent hardware platform---doable. A modern browser---undoable?

The problem is that today's 95% is tomorrow's 10%. Somebody has to beconstantly adding crap to it in order to keep up to date.--scott--"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

RE: laptops

We are not doing anything to prevent VMS from running on laptops, after all they are just more HW platforms. But being a real personal system with the expected graphics involves a number of things that are just not in the cards for us in the foreseeable future. Our resources are better spent elsewhere where VMS has a more obvious role.

RE: virtual machines

As we have said from the very beginning we intend to run as a virtual machine on as many hosts as we can. This may sound easy put it is proving to be difficult, not insurmountable but a lot of work. We currently use Fusion (VMware on MAC), kvm on Proliant, and Virtual Box on MAC for testing. The challenge is that the default for most hypervisors is still BIOS with UEFI as an option but each hypervisor has it own incantation of what it thinks simulates UEFI. We are gaining on it but it is a struggle. There are big differences between the uefi you get in platform FW versus what you get from hypervisors. HW versus hypervisors should be irrelevant to the OS but the world is far less than perfect.

RE: partitioned disks

We now create three partitions when we initialize a disk, one for uefi and two (why it is not one is a complicated story) for the file system. The Boot Manager recognizes the uefi partition and SYSBOOT and the file system recognize the other two as VMS. While we do not do it today there is no reason why in the future, with the appropriate work, that VMS would not init the entire disk and thus leave room for partitions for other file systems. All the necessary low-level work is in place today and we do think about this so we do not do anything to prevent it.

Post by Scott Dorseyconstantly adding crap to it in order to keep up to date.--scott--"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

RE: laptopsWe are not doing anything to prevent VMS from running on laptops,after all they are just more HW platforms. But being a real personalsystem with the expected graphics involves a number of things thatare just not in the cards for us in the foreseeable future. Our resourcesare better spent elsewhere where VMS has a more obvious role.

Perfect .. what better initial porting platform than some older laptops kicking around that can be configured as OpenVMS servers in a small OpenVMS cluster?

Imho, its similar to the strategy of VAX's not being supported in an Alpha/IA64 cluster, but VAX's work just fine in these clusters.

In addition, contrary to the many graphics adapters of the past, many of the next gen graphics adapters are adopting more open standards like Vulkan which will make it easier for a third party company to offer add on products to OpenVMS / X86-64 Customers.

Case in point - Microsoft offers a basic Backup utility, but few seldom use and instead purchase third party products. The same could be stated for VSI and OpenVMS i.e. Offer a basic capability, but work with Partners/ISV's to offer value add options.

VSI can not be expected to address all of the features folks want anymore than Microsoft or Apple offer all solutions for their platforms.

RE: virtual machinesAs we have said from the very beginning we intend to run as a virtualmachine on as many hosts as we can. This may sound easy put it isproving to be difficult, not insurmountable but a lot of work. Wecurrently use Fusion (VMware on MAC), kvm on Proliant, and VirtualBox on MAC for testing. The challenge is that the default for mosthypervisors is still BIOS with UEFI as an option but each hypervisor hasit own incantation of what it thinks simulates UEFI. We are gaining on itbut it is a struggle. There are big differences between the uefi you getin platform FW versus what you get from hypervisors. HW versushypervisors should be irrelevant to the OS but the world is far less thanperfect.

This is a great strategy as can be seen by a recent next gen DC program (very large, govt based) which is really looking hard (actually implementing) at software defined networks (SDN) and software defined datacenters (SDD). There is huge push to get rid of dedicated physical servers for everything except where required e.g. VMware, Hyper-V host servers. There are some environments that still require dedicated physical HW for compute/IO etc., but these are rapidly decreasing.

Even networking features are being integrated into the Host hypervisors e.g. VMware NSX.

I addition, for SW companies like VSI, Microsoft etc., they do not care as they still get the same licensing $'s whether it is on a Virt or Phys based OS.

The days of running a piece of server HW in a DC that is only 25-50% busy (or much less) at peak times is rapidly disappearing. This likely applies to 75% of the OpenVMS Cust base.

Being able to say OpenVMS will run in a VMware, Hyper-V and KVM environment would be huge. These are the big three (in decreasing order of priority). Running on MAC would be nice to have, but I have not seen MAC's being used in any DC environment for a long time.

Btw, when looking at VMware vs. Hyper-V, it is a bit like comparing an NHL hockey player (VMware is not inexpensive, but has likely 80+% of the virtual market) to a Peewee hockey player like Hyper-V. Yes, they both have skates, have protective equipment and carry a stick but the level of capabilities is vastly different.

RE: partitioned disksWe now create three partitions when we initialize a disk, one for uefiand two (why it is not one is a complicated story) for the file system.The Boot Manager recognizes the uefi partition and SYSBOOT and thefile system recognize the other two as VMS. While we do not do ittoday there is no reason why in the future, with the appropriate work,that VMS would not init the entire disk and thus leave room forpartitions for other file systems. All the necessary low-level work is inplace today and we do think about this so we do not do anything toprevent it.

On a similar vein, here is my vote for bootable LD containers.

Download a profile specific LD container (e.g. customized Dev env with development languages and selected open source prod's), boot, run some minor custom start-up gui/script and away you go.

Perhaps it would make it much easier in a VMware world which uses templates to create custom VM's?

kicking around that can be configured as OpenVMS servers in a smallOpenVMS cluster?For some definition of "older". Certainly the chips need to be 64-bitcapable and SSE4.1 at least. So don't expect that old Gateway laptopsitting in your basement to have a chance of working.

Do people still have those?

😊

No - Since most laptops get replaced (or mine anyway) every 3 years, the laptops I would be looking at using are within 3 years old.

Heck, a new I5 64b laptop is less than $500 these days anyway. Even a more capable laptop (modern I7 etc.) with 8GB memory is less than a $1000 - pretty cheap porting gear.

As for the "away you go", there's a whole pile of work behind thatwhich will be needed to authenticate, and to keep what's in thosecontainers from getting tangled together. The environment classicOpenVMS system mangers are experienced with — bespoke startups,prefixes and conventions, and the rest — is not effective in this era;not at any particular scale, nor is the present environment evenremotely proof against stupid app coding mistakes, much less againstvulnerable and hijacked apps or rogue app code. Don't get me startedabout UIC collisions and the rest...

LD is the "ripping a CD" or "downloading a disk image" stage — littlemore than distribution of the bits, and quite possibly unsigned — ofwhat's involved with containers.https://blog.engineyard.com/2015/linux-containers-isolationhttps://blog.engineyard.com/2015/isolation-linux-containershttps://linuxcontainers.org/lxc/introduction/

Like "cloud", "container" is a generic term that anyone can use to describe just about anything.

Just because it may not fit the Linux purists definition, it does not mean other uses of the term is not appropriate.

A CD image, ok, signed CD image, can certainly be called a container.

As for the "away you go", there's a whole pile of work behind thatwhich will be needed to authenticate, and to keep what's in thosecontainers from getting tangled together. The environment classicOpenVMS system mangers are experienced with — bespoke startups,prefixes and conventions, and the rest — is not effective in this era;not at any particular scale, nor is the present environment evenremotely proof against stupid app coding mistakes, much less againstvulnerable and hijacked apps or rogue app code. Don't get me startedabout UIC collisions and the rest...

Translated - yes, there would be some work involved.

But other platforms have similar issues, so pretending that they don't is just OS bashing.

Case in point - I remember a 50+ page Windows build document that one of my Windows SME's on a project a few years back put together in an effort to standardize our project Windows builds.

Ayup. Isolating containers — providing more than what OpenVMS hasoffered here for decades — is a whole lot more work than most realize,both for the OS folks as well as for the folks developing and deployingtools and apps for use in those containers. I don't see us in aposition to trust the contents of even the containers we've acquiredand loaded, either. But then I've chased down these same problemswithout having containers around, whether it's a DEC C feature logicalname or some other collision or conflict or vulnerability.

Ignoring or (arguably worse) pretending that other platforms don't havegood and variously better ideas — and why folks might pick thoseplatforms over some other operating system — seems a problematicapproach for long-term product success, though.

Post by Kerry MainCase in point - I remember a 50+ page Windows build document that oneof my Windows SME's on a project a few years back put together in aneffort to standardize our project Windows builds.

Swimming in a municipal sewage treatment pond is probably preferable toswimming in a reactor core cooling pool. Doesn't make me like eitheroption.

Again, pointing out the worst of something can be a good reference forwhat not to do — or what to do differently, if the idea was actuallyalmost useful — but unrelated making comparisons against problematicparts of the competitive landscape is usually a poor source ofenhancements and improvements. It's not a good view. I'm not aproponent of making overly rosy comparisons, whether the data isintended for advanced development or as fodder accrued forintentionally deceptive marketing.

Post by Stephen HoffmanLD is the "ripping a CD" or "downloading a disk image" stage — littlemore than distribution of the bits, and quite possibly unsigned — ofwhat's involved with containers.https://blog.engineyard.com/2015/linux-containers-isolationhttps://blog.engineyard.com/2015/isolation-linux-containershttps://linuxcontainers.org/lxc/introduction/

Like "cloud", "container" is a generic term that anyone can use todescribe just about anything.Just because it may not fit the Linux purists definition, it doesnotmean other uses of the term is not appropriate.A CD image, ok, signed CD image, can certainly be called acontainer.

Sure. A large steel thingy used to ship things from China to the UScan also be called a container.

But software containers have a reasonable well definedmeaning that does not include LD images.

Like "cloud", "container" is a generic term that anyone can use todescribe just about anything.Just because it may not fit the Linux purists definition, it does notmean other uses of the term is not appropriate.A CD image, ok, signed CD image, can certainly be called a container.

Sure. A large steel thingy used to ship things from China to the US canalso be called a container.But software containers have a reasonable well defined meaning thatdoes not include LD images.Arne

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docker_(software)

"Docker containers wrap up a piece of software in a complete filesystem that contains everything it needs to run: code, runtime, system tools, system libraries – anything you can install on a server."

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸jSure. A large steel thingy used to ship things from China to the UScan also be called a container.But software containers have a reasonable well defined meaning thatdoes not include LD images.

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸jSure. A large steel thingy used to ship things from China to the UScan also be called a container.But software containers have a reasonable well defined meaning thatdoes not include LD images.

And it is possible now to implement non-privilege container typeenvironments on VMS that share the host networking.You just need to know the logical names to set, and you can also assistby manipulating the command tables.Most of the logical names are documented or easily determined, so it isjust a SMOP for creating the script.So a container implementation on VMS would simply need a script thatreferences the shared images and simulated directories for the desiredenvironment.Adding a TCPIP NAT environment would be a bit more work.And this has been doable since at least VMS 4.X. It just has not beenmade into an easy to use product/package.Remember, with a container, all system services are actually handled bythe host OS, so some operations may not work the same as on a native system.One should be able to write a script that can setup a mounted VMSinstallation disk for use as a container for building or runningprograms against, as long as they were the same architecture.Regards,-John

How do two different containers on the same box both utilize port 443?Or sequences the startups, for that matter? Because if nobody looksat the whole of keeping the containers separate against potentiallyhostile activity, and if the apps aren't themselves thenpotentially-substantially modified and shipped with support for thesubset environment within the containers, this only ends in a verylarge molten crater. Because "LD as a container" as it exists now isnot substantially better than what PCSI now provides, or what PCSIshould provide.

Post by John E. MalmbergAnd it is possible now to implement non-privilege container typeenvironments on VMS that share the host networking.You just need to know the logical names to set, and you can alsoassist by manipulating the command tables.Most of the logical names are documented or easily determined, so itis just a SMOP for creating the script.So a container implementation on VMS would simply need a script thatreferences the shared images and simulated directories for the desiredenvironment.Adding a TCPIP NAT environment would be a bit more work.And this has been doable since at least VMS 4.X. It just has not beenmade into an easy to use product/package.Remember, with a container, all system services are actually handledby the host OS, so some operations may not work the same as on anative system.One should be able to write a script that can setup a mounted VMSinstallation disk for use as a container for building or runningprograms against, as long as they were the same architecture.>

How do two different containers on the same box both utilize port 443?

Non-privileged containers do not bind to server ports.

The two ways of addressing that is either to allocate a unique networkaddress to the container or set up a NAT system.

I have not tried this, but it looks like TCPIP Services will allowassigning multiple IP addresses to an interface.

A non-privileged container would be like setting up a cross buildenvironment. It is just that "container" is the new buzzword for it.

What is the startup for a container? It is simply a wrapper oflibraries and overlay of directories that run on a Host OS.

Something must set up the wrappers and overlays.

On VMS it could be a program or script provided as a layered productthat looks for a description file on a disk, or the entire program couldbe contained in a logical disk, or something like the unzipself-extracting executable could be used to make the container look likean executable.

Post by Stephen HoffmanBecause if nobody looksat the whole of keeping the containers separate against potentiallyhostile activity, and if the apps aren't themselves thenpotentially-substantially modified and shipped with support for thesubset environment within the containers, this only ends in a very largemolten crater. Because "LD as a container" as it exists now is notsubstantially better than what PCSI now provides, or what PCSI shouldprovide.

That gets into the arguments about how secure a container is, and howmuch isolation and transparency are provided. These discussions aregoing on in the Linux community now, and as they try to "fix" thesethings in containers. My Ubuntu 14.04 lxd container running SimH/VAXwill not work on Ubuntu 16.04 because they now require the container todeclare the privileges it will use, but did not provide the requiredversion of libvirt library that is needed to for that to happen.

So containers even on Linux are still in flux.

LD is not a container. I could build a container that is hosted on alogical disk though.

My point is that VMS since at least version 4.1, if not earlier allowsnon-privileged users to set up environments that fit the definition ofsome of the containers in use on Linux.

What no one has done is packaged the method for fun or fame.

For highly isolated privileged containers, that would take some higherlevel programming. But for common container uses, there is reallynothing needed to be added to VMS.

What is the startup for a container? It is simply a wrapper oflibraries and overlay of directories that run on a Host OS.Something must set up the wrappers and overlays.On VMS it could be a program or script provided as a layered productthat looks for a description file on a disk, or the entire programcould be contained in a logical disk, or something like the unzipself-extracting executable could be used to make the container looklike an executable.

Post by Stephen HoffmanBecause if nobody looks at the whole of keeping the containers separateagainst potentially hostile activity, and if the apps aren't themselvesthen potentially-substantially modified and shipped with support forthe subset environment within the containers, this only ends in a verylarge molten crater. Because "LD as a container" as it exists now isnot substantially better than what PCSI now provides, or what PCSIshould provide.

That gets into the arguments about how secure a container is, and howmuch isolation and transparency are provided. These discussions aregoing on in the Linux community now, and as they try to "fix" thesethings in containers. My Ubuntu 14.04 lxd container running SimH/VAXwill not work on Ubuntu 16.04 because they now require the container todeclare the privileges it will use, but did not provide the requiredversion of libvirt library that is needed to for that to happen.

Ayup. Part of the declarations tie into what system services can beaccessed, whether or not networking is available, and a whole host ofother details. Basically, provisioning and signatures. Mechanismswhich are already available on some systems.

IT is in flux. Only going to be going faster, too. And security hasbeen dealing with fast flux for a while too, but I digress. OpenVMSwill have to compete with Linux and other platforms, too — with LXC orotherwise, and what follows those. This if OpenVMS is going tocontinue to target security, as has been recent fodder for more than alittle VSI marketing. This to avoid VSI products and VSI marketingbeing at a disadvantage in competitive situations, that is.

Post by John E. MalmbergMy point is that VMS since at least version 4.1, if not earlier allowsnon-privileged users to set up environments that fit the definition ofsome of the containers in use on Linux.

This isn't about the past. This isn't about whether or not somebodycan build a repeatable build system over on some older Windows version.This isn't about whether or not scripting works well with MS-DOS.My interest in this is about 2022, 2027, and beyond, and what will beexpected of applications by then. Because that isn't LD, nor adding afew decorations to PCSI.

Because it's little different and little better than what PCSI provides.

Post by John E. MalmbergFor highly isolated privileged containers, that would take some higherlevel programming. But for common container uses, there is reallynothing needed to be added to VMS.

Sure, but then having dragged around containers on OpenVMS — Python isbut one example that does this — there's all the fun of storingtransient files (somewhere), dealing with installs and removals (andcleanups), and a host of other tasks that are best automated. This ifit's non-privileged, and there's no particular interest in restrictingaccess. Because all of this stuff is presently manual, error-prone,and we are not operating in a time where we can add more manual effort,more errors, overhead, processing, more breaches, and the rest.

Post by John E. MalmbergI have not tried this, but it looks like TCPIP Services will allowassigning multiple IP addresses to an interface.

Yes you can, but what actually happens is that you create a pseudointerface for each IP address and the pseudo interface is a childof the main interface.

I've used it before when collapsing parts of what was previouslypart of a regional WAN back into a local LAN.

And for goodness sake be careful when doing it as it's all too easyto typo and mess up the wrong interface; I was always very seriouslycareful when doing this. Make sure you first have a way of gettingback into your VMS system if you are trying to configure a VMS systemremotely.

Simon.

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Post by John E. MalmbergI have not tried this, but it looks like TCPIP Services will allowassigning multiple IP addresses to an interface.

Yes you can, but what actually happens is that you create a pseudointerface for each IP address and the pseudo interface is a childof the main interface.I've used it before when collapsing parts of what was previouslypart of a regional WAN back into a local LAN.And for goodness sake be careful when doing it as it's all too easyto typo and mess up the wrong interface; I was always very seriouslycareful when doing this. Make sure you first have a way of gettingback into your VMS system if you are trying to configure a VMS systemremotely.Simon.--Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Yes, you can apply more than one IP address to an interface. But whether or not a pseudo interface is created for this purpose depends on how you define the adresses. When you use the TCPIP command utility, you get the pseudo interfaces. But when you (only) use the ifconfig command, you do not get them. I believe that the latter gives you a cleaner configuration.

Non-privileged containers do not bind to server ports.The two ways of addressing that is either to allocate a unique networkaddress to the container or set up a NAT system.I have not tried this, but it looks like TCPIP Services will allowassigning multiple IP addresses to an interface.

Wouldn't a front end reverse proxy server solve this problem?

"One IP address, multiple SSL sites? Beating the great IPv4 squeeze"

<https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/01/nginx_and_the_end_of_ip4/>

FWIW I'm currently looking at using nginx to cache both individualsoftware packages and container (of sorts) images which are quite large.

LD is the "ripping a CD" or "downloading a disk image" stage — littlemore than distribution of the bits, and quite possibly unsigned — ofwhat's involved with containers.

<snip>

LD isn't in the same ballpark as fully fledged containers are but they are useful IMO, certainly more flexible than having to deal with physical disks alone

For them to be more useful, they would need in my view the following...

- Encryption

- Some form of authentication mechanism (as you have pointed out)

- Partitioning (across multiple volumes. Perhaps this could be how we get software RAID on VMS ?)

- Compression (then they could be used as a viable staged backup mechanism. I was looking to use LD recently for staged backup storage but the lack of compression ruled it out quickly - having to wind through savesets in serial on an LTO4 is painful. It must be infuriating dealing with the likes of higher LTO forms, even with partitioning - lol, even tapes support partitioning!! Past time for VMS to do the same)

- Live changes (including expansion / reduction). Obviously difficult to achieve but if a vision is set then as you make changes along the way you can put in attributes to make the vision a reality 'one day' (VMDK and others support dynamic expansion already I believe)

- Interoperability with other OS's. Supporting different disk file types such as VDI or VMDK will mean better ability to transfer data back/forth etc.

- Snapshots (that can deal with processes with inflight data updates so that a 100% guaranteed image can be obtained)

LD, while ok, needs more work to be really useful IMO. Hopefully most of the above is being addressed as VMS moves to support virtualisation properly on x86

LD is the "ripping a CD" or "downloading a disk image" stage — littlemore than distribution of the bits, and quite possibly unsigned — ofwhat's involved with containers.

<snip>LD isn't in the same ballpark as fully fledged containers are but they are useful IMO, certainly more flexible than having to deal with physical disks aloneFor them to be more useful, they would need in my view the following...- Encryption- Some form of authentication mechanism (as you have pointed out)- Partitioning (across multiple volumes. Perhaps this could be how we get software RAID on VMS ?)- Compression (then they could be used as a viable staged backup mechanism. I was looking to use LD recently for staged backup storage but the lack of compression ruled it out quickly - having to wind through savesets in serial on an LTO4 is painful. It must be infuriating dealing with the likes of higher LTO forms, even with partitioning - lol, even tapes support partitioning!! Past time for VMS to do the same)- Live changes (including expansion / reduction). Obviously difficult to achieve but if a vision is set then as you make changes along the way you can put in attributes to make the vision a reality 'one day' (VMDK and others support dynamic expansion already I believe)- Interoperability with other OS's. Supporting different disk file types such as VDI or VMDK will mean better ability to transfer data back/forth etc.- Snapshots (that can deal with processes with inflight data updates so that a 100% guaranteed image can be obtained)LD, while ok, needs more work to be really useful IMO. Hopefully most of the above is being addressed as VMS moves to support virtualisation properly on x86

Discussing disks is interesting, just as discussing other things of the past.Looking forward, discussing NV memory seems to be more interesting.

LD is the "ripping a CD" or "downloading a disk image" stage — littlemore than distribution of the bits, and quite possibly unsigned — ofwhat's involved with containers.

<snip>LD isn't in the same ballpark as fully fledged containers are but they areuseful IMO, certainly more flexible than having to deal with physicaldisks aloneFor them to be more useful, they would need in my view thefollowing...

Bootable LD's that support AES 256 level encryption that is also compatible with existing and planned BIOS level security mechanisms would keep me happy for this specific area.

- Encryption- Some form of authentication mechanism (as you have pointed out)- Partitioning (across multiple volumes. Perhaps this could be how weget software RAID on VMS ?)- Compression (then they could be used as a viable staged backupmechanism. I was looking to use LD recently for staged backup storagebut the lack of compression ruled it out quickly - having to windthrough savesets in serial on an LTO4 is painful. It must be infuriatingdealing with the likes of higher LTO forms, even with partitioning - lol,even tapes support partitioning!! Past time for VMS to do the same)

With single 60TB SSD flash and 8TB NV disks now available (and greater sizes coming), do we need compression and tapes?

Google "60TB Seagate"

- Live changes (including expansion / reduction). Obviously difficult toachieve but if a vision is set then as you make changes along the wayyou can put in attributes to make the vision a reality 'one day' (VMDKand others support dynamic expansion already I believe)

With TB level NV system disks, does one need to expand a system volume in the next number of years?

- Interoperability with other OS's. Supporting different disk file typessuch as VDI or VMDK will mean better ability to transfer databack/forth etc.

The way one transfers data between guest OS's on VMware / Hyper-V is via the network.

- Snapshots (that can deal with processes with inflight data updates sothat a 100% guaranteed image can be obtained)

With VMware, the guest OS is simply a single file, so their answer is to quiet the guest, copy the file and resume the OS.

Once mounted, LD images can be updated just like any other disk.

LD, while ok, needs more work to be really useful IMO. Hopefully mostof the above is being addressed as VMS moves to supportvirtualisation properly on x86

With hyper converged strategies, the world is rapidly moving to virtualized OS instances.

Companies like VSI and Microsoft are not going to care what HW their OS is running on because their license and/or support charges are the same regardless.

For those not familiar with these emerging hyper converged strategies, I highly recommend reading up because this is happening big time today.

A few links to the more popular hyper converged options currently being deployed in big DC's today:https://www.nutanix.com/

LD is the "ripping a CD" or "downloading a disk image" stage — little>more than distribution of the bits, and quite possibly unsigned — of>what's involved with containers.

<snip>LD isn't in the same ballpark as fully fledged containers are but theyare useful IMO, certainly more flexible than having to deal withphysical disks alone

Sure, but then we're discussing what was available twenty years ago andnot what's available now, much less what will be available in five orten years from now. If you're producing products, you have to aimyears into the future for any substantial work — end-users are largelyfocused on what they've seen and what's available. (This is also whyasking end-users for their input on new product features andcapabilities is difficult, as they'll tell you what they have and knowabout, and not what they really want, or features they really coulduse. Or they'll ask for something that the producer might never beable to provide at a profit, as can easily happen.)

Post by IanDFor them to be more useful, they would need in my view the following...,,,LD, while ok, needs more work to be really useful IMO. Hopefully mostof the above is being addressed as VMS moves to support virtualisationproperly on x86

You're missing more than a few bits around making this sort of stuffuseful and manageable and isolatable, much less making it competitivewith what's already out there. Creating the containers, storing andmanaging and loading the containers, automated inventory of the servershosting the containers, restarting, dealing with the startups and nothaving to edit OpenVMS startup files manually, keeping the containersfrom getting tangled up due to stupid coding or softwarevulnerabilities or malicious code from a supplier, and a whole host ofother details. Software containers are a form of automation, and youreally need to provide the pieces to allow that, or integrate with sometool or framework that provides that — very much akin to how containersrevolutionized transportation decades ago, there's a whole lot involvedbeyond the variously-sized big steel boxes.) Simply catching up withwhat's already available now on other platforms — and I'm not referringto comparisons with the difficulties of achieving repeatable Windowssoftware builds here, though that is a surprisingly good metaphor forthe difficulties involved with automating software deployments onOpenVMS — is not an easy problem, either.

Post by Kerry MainOn a similar vein, here is my vote for bootable LD containers.Download a profile specific LD container (e.g. customized Dev env with development languages and selected open source prod's), boot, run some minor custom start-up gui/script and away you go.Perhaps it would make it much easier in a VMware world which uses templates to create custom VM's?

Many things can be considered "nice" ....

Ok, on a VM you might more easily be able to boot from a container file.

As most containers are now handled, it's all software. That's fine, when youcan run the software. But for booting from HW, the software is not yet runable.Now you're back to special device drivers. You know, those things which don'texist for many things as far as VMS is concerned. Now you want to expand thelist of required device drivers? It's not just one. It's maybe a driver forevery device you wish to boot a container file from.

At some point you got to stop and ask yourself, how do you access a file, whenthe file system isn't yet running?

To use containers, as they are now normally implemented, you first got to getsome form of OS and file system running, right? Sort of like "chicken and egg".

Not saying it cannot be done, but, I have to question the value vs cost.

Post by Kerry MainOn a similar vein, here is my vote for bootable LD containers.Download a profile specific LD container (e.g. customized Dev env withdevelopment languages and selected open source prod's), boot, run someminor custom start-up gui/script and away you go.Perhaps it would make it much easier in a VMware world which usestemplates to create custom VM's?

Many things can be considered "nice" ....Ok, on a VM you might more easily be able to boot from a container file.As most containers are now handled, it's all software. That's fine, whenyou can run the software. But for booting from HW, the software is not yetrunable. Now you're back to special device drivers. You know, thosethings which don't exist for many things as far as VMS is concerned. Nowyou want to expand the list of required device drivers? It's not justone. It's maybe a driver for every device you wish to boot a containerfile from.At some point you got to stop and ask yourself, how do you access a file,when the file system isn't yet running?

Are you talkning about the host system (probably Windows or Linux) filesystem or the guest (VMS) file system?

In the case of the container file for a guest OS, the basic fileaccess is done by the host OS. It in turn preents the containerto the guest OS as it it had been a hardware disk. And the guestOS simply boot from it using it's standard and normal drivers.

Post by David FrobleTo use containers, as they are now normally implemented, you first got toget some form of OS and file system running, right?

Post by Kerry MainOn a similar vein, here is my vote for bootable LD containers.Download a profile specific LD container (e.g. customized Dev env withdevelopment languages and selected open source prod's), boot, run someminor custom start-up gui/script and away you go.Perhaps it would make it much easier in a VMware world which usestemplates to create custom VM's?

Many things can be considered "nice" ....Ok, on a VM you might more easily be able to boot from a container file.

You missed this Jan-Erik. Everything below was talking about on HW, not a VM.

Post by David FrobleAs most containers are now handled, it's all software. That's fine, whenyou can run the software. But for booting from HW, the software is not yetrunable. Now you're back to special device drivers. You know, thosethings which don't exist for many things as far as VMS is concerned. Nowyou want to expand the list of required device drivers? It's not justone. It's maybe a driver for every device you wish to boot a containerfile from.At some point you got to stop and ask yourself, how do you access a file,when the file system isn't yet running?

Are you talkning about the host system (probably Windows or Linux) filesystem or the guest (VMS) file system?In the case of the container file for a guest OS, the basic fileaccess is done by the host OS. It in turn preents the containerto the guest OS as it it had been a hardware disk. And the guestOS simply boot from it using it's standard and normal drivers.

Post by David FrobleTo use containers, as they are now normally implemented, you first got toget some form of OS and file system running, right?

Post by Kerry MainOn a similar vein, here is my vote for bootable LD containers.Download a profile specific LD container (e.g. customized Dev env withdevelopment languages and selected open source prod's), boot, run someminor custom start-up gui/script and away you go.Perhaps it would make it much easier in a VMware world which usestemplates to create custom VM's?

Many things can be considered "nice" ....Ok, on a VM you might more easily be able to boot from a container file.

You missed this Jan-Erik. Everything below was talking about on HW, not a VM.

Then I do not understand your question. On HW, whatever you are bootingdoes need to understand the real HW, of course. Did you ask about that?

You can not "boot the HW" directly from a "container file", if the HWdoesn't have support to read them directly, of course.

Post by David FrobleNice explanation Steve. But, now back to my question, about booting anOS that is in a container file, as if it was on a disk (or other)device, and using VMS utilities, such as MOUNT, with them. Rememberthat question?

I believe that is what most virtualization software that runs on ahost OS instead of directly on the metal does.And the virtualization software make it look like areal disk.Arne

Post by Kerry MainOn a similar vein, here is my vote for bootable LD containers.Download a profile specific LD container (e.g. customized Dev env withdevelopment languages and selected open source prod's), boot, run someminor custom start-up gui/script and away you go.Perhaps it would make it much easier in a VMware world which usestemplates to create custom VM's?

Many things can be considered "nice" ....Ok, on a VM you might more easily be able to boot from a container file.

You missed this Jan-Erik. Everything below was talking about on HW, not a VM.

Then I do not understand your question. On HW, whatever you are bootingdoes need to understand the real HW, of course. Did you ask about that?You can not "boot the HW" directly from a "container file", if the HWdoesn't have support to read them directly, of course.If that was what you ment, you were stating the obviouse. Fine.

Yes, that was thew discussion. I could have been more explicit. Need to dothat to avoid misunderstanding.

I could see firmware being able to access a file system. I just don't see thatit would be all that cost effective. Also it would usually be chasing a movingtarget as HW and file systems change.

Post by David FrobleNice explanation Steve. But, now back to my question, about booting anOS that is in a container file, as if it was on a disk (or other)device, and using VMS utilities, such as MOUNT, with them. Rememberthat question?

I believe that is what most virtualization software that runs on ahost OS instead of directly on the metal does.And the virtualization software make it look like areal disk.Arne

Then I do not understand your question. On HW, whatever you arebooting does need to understand the real HW, of course. Did you

ask

about that?

Post by Jan-Erik SoderholmYou can not "boot the HW" directly from a "container file", if the HWdoesn't have support to read them directly, of course.If that was what you ment, you were stating the obviouse. Fine.

Yes, that was thew discussion. I could have been more explicit.

Need

to do that to avoid misunderstanding.I could see firmware being able to access a file system. I just

Post by Jan-Erik SoderholmThen I do not understand your question. On HW, whatever you are bootingdoes need to understand the real HW, of course. Did you ask about that?You can not "boot the HW" directly from a "container file", if the HWdoesn't have support to read them directly, of course.If that was what you ment, you were stating the obviouse. Fine.

Yes, that was thew discussion. I could have been more explicit. Needto do that to avoid misunderstanding.I could see firmware being able to access a file system. I just don'tsee that it would be all that cost effective. Also it would usually bechasing a moving target as HW and file systems change.

Not directly from the HW, but with the help of a loader like grub, which- as already said - needs to support the file system where your"container file" is:

Post by Dirk MunkA long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with thenecessary add-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need forthat, but you do need a browser on your notebook.

So is the rest of the modern desktop, and the modern UI — looking atgraphics in isolation is a fool's errand — as there's far more thanjust supporting Intel HD graphics or Intel Iris, or the AMD Ryzenequivalent, or suchlike. Phillip prefers the command line as the UI,but that's not something that really even needs graphics controllersupport.

Post by c***@gmail.comRE: laptopsWe are not doing anything to prevent VMS from running on laptops, afterall they are just more HW platforms. But being a real personal systemwith the expected graphics involves a number of things that are justnot in the cards for us in the foreseeable future. Our resources arebetter spent elsewhere where VMS has a more obvious role.

Ayup. Having graphics support is a rounding error in what folks thenexpect a desktop to provide.

Post by c***@gmail.comRE: virtual machinesAs we have said from the very beginning we intend to run as a virtualmachine on as many hosts as we can. This may sound easy put it isproving to be difficult, not insurmountable but a lot of work. Wecurrently use Fusion (VMware on MAC), kvm on Proliant, and Virtual Boxon MAC

"MAC" is a network address construct or a cosmetics company, among other uses.

Post by c***@gmail.comfor testing. The challenge is that the default for most hypervisors isstill BIOS with UEFI as an option but each hypervisor has it ownincantation of what it thinks simulates UEFI. We are gaining on it butit is a struggle. There are big differences between the uefi you get inplatform FW versus what you get from hypervisors. HW versus hypervisorsshould be irrelevant to the OS but the world is far less than perfect.

Last I checked, the macOS-based virtual machines can present BIOS, butalso allow UEFI.

Here's a good resource for this area of macOS and Dell/EMC VMwareproducts: http://www.virtuallyghetto.com

There are VM packages for macOS that are built on the Apple hypervisorframeworks, for those interested in that topic:https://developer.apple.com/reference/hypervisorhttps://veertu.comhttps://github.com/mist64/xhyve

No idea whether that'll be useable or even stable with OpenVMS or withany other particular operating system guest, but Veertu and xhyve areavailable and the related source code is posted on github.

Post by c***@gmail.comRE: partitioned disksWe now create three partitions when we initialize a disk, one for uefiand two (why it is not one is a complicated story) for the file system.

OpenVMS uses up to five GPT partitions. It's also not a particularlycomplicated story, either. It's because OpenVMS does not support diskpartitioning, and I hacked together a very nasty workaround to accountfor the boot and system drivers not including the necessary integermath in the lower reaches of the I/O path.

Post by c***@gmail.comThe Boot Manager recognizes the uefi partition and SYSBOOT and the filesystem recognize the other two as VMS. While we do not do it todaythere is no reason why in the future, with the appropriate work, thatVMS would not init the entire disk and thus leave room for partitionsfor other file systems. All the necessary low-level work is in placetoday and we do think about this so we do not do anything to prevent it.

Up to five partitions are present for the boot and (when present)maintenance partition, with up to three additional partitionsinterspersed — how many depends on where the boot and maintenancepartitions are located relative to the beginning, to each other, and toend of the available disk storage — these to protect the entirety ofthe disk from being considered unallocated by console-level diskinformation and partitioning tools, and all this hackery to allowOpenVMS to consider the disk as a single unpartitioned unit of storage.(There's added hackery here around the default boot file systemsupport being FAT for EFI/UEFI. While adding a file system moduleinto UEFI to support partitions containing ODS-2/ODS-5/VAFS bootvolumes would be technically possible, it's more effort and morecomplexity.)

Post by Stephen HoffmanOpenVMS uses up to five GPT partitions. It's also not a particularlycomplicated story, either. It's because OpenVMS does not support diskpartitioning, and I hacked together a very nasty workaround to accountfor the boot and system drivers not including the necessary integermath in the lower reaches of the I/O path.

That includes the lack of partitioning support in MOUNT and DISMOUNT,and the lack of partitioning support in other related tools needed toanalyze and maintain and repartition storage, and keeping track ofwhich volumes are mounted when the physical disk is to be yanked, andthe documentation for it all. This is not complex, but — likegraphics support — there's more than a little code that's notimmediately apparent. So — like the hybrid 32- and 64-bit addressingdesign, or various other compromises to upward-compatibility —tradeoffs are made. That's part of shipping most any complex product,too.

Post by Stephen HoffmanOpenVMS uses up to five GPT partitions. It's also not a particularlycomplicated story, either. It's because OpenVMS does not supportdisk partitioning, and I hacked together a very nasty workaround toaccount for the boot and system drivers not including the necessaryinteger math in the lower reaches of the I/O path.

That includes the lack of partitioning support in MOUNT and DISMOUNT,and the lack of partitioning support in other related tools needed toanalyze and maintain and repartition storage, and keeping track of whichvolumes are mounted when the physical disk is to be yanked, and thedocumentation for it all. This is not complex, but — like graphicssupport — there's more than a little code that's not immediatelyapparent. So — like the hybrid 32- and 64-bit addressing design, orvarious other compromises to upward-compatibility — tradeoffs aremade. That's part of shipping most any complex product, too.

Curiosity ...

LD containers are usable on VMS. How, if such happens, do the VMS utilitieswork with such things? I haven't done much with LD containers, can't rememberif the stuff implementing them does all such work.

I could probably find out most answers, but, I am just so incredibly lazy ..

Post by Stephen HoffmanOpenVMS uses up to five GPT partitions. It's also not a particularlycomplicated story, either. It's because OpenVMS does not support diskpartitioning, and I hacked together a very nasty workaround to accountfor the boot and system drivers not including the necessary integermath in the lower reaches of the I/O path.

That includes the lack of partitioning support in MOUNT and DISMOUNT,and the lack of partitioning support in other related tools needed toanalyze and maintain and repartition storage, and keeping track ofwhich volumes are mounted when the physical disk is to be yanked, andthe documentation for it all. This is not complex, but — likegraphics support — there's more than a little code that's notimmediately apparent. So — like the hybrid 32- and 64-bit addressingdesign, or various other compromises to upward-compatibility —tradeoffs are made. That's part of shipping most any complex product,too.

Curiosity ...LD containers are usable on VMS. How, if such happens, do the VMSutilities work with such things? I haven't done much with LDcontainers, can't remember if the stuff implementing them does all suchwork.I could probably find out most answers, but, I am just so incredibly lazy ..

Kerry is extolling the virtues of here seems utterly indistinguishablefrom a CD or DVD containing an app, an InfoServer service offering adisk share, or a partition containing an app.

OpenVMS has offered these capabilities for decades, and Pythoncurrently does exactly this using LD rather than dealing with thelimitations of what PCSI provides.

Using containers or using LD certainly includes the limitations andproblems inherently involved with trying to keep apps separate, addingapp-specific users for integrated server processes, preventing logicalname collisions, allocating privileges or IP addresses or ports orwhatever, restricting access to other containers or to random parts ofthe system or network environment the app has no business accessing,verifying whether the data and the apps are signed by a trusted entity,licensing whatever components are integrated, dependencies andintegration and access across multiple distros when there's a suite ofrelated products or a product with dependencies on some othercontainer, getting the startups coordinated and sequenced, etc.

Then there's further along the path, of maintaining an inventory ofcontainers arrived or tested or ready for deployment or archived forfuture use, and tools to add or upgrade or remove or relocate the appsin the containers, and to deal with the bureaucratic baggage such aslicensing. Beyond isolation and reproducibility and the rest, manyof the folks also expect better automation around using the containers.

All certainly possible, but keeping semi-trusted apps from gettingtangled isn't easy. Semi-trusted? Sure, you might trust who you gotthe app from, but what happens if there's a mistake or a vulnerabilityin the app code, or some dependency underneath the container or the DVDor whatever; how to you isolate the damage?

If there's a significant difference between container sprawl and VMsprawl, I just don't see it. There are differences in how tools orlayered products or databases are licensed to a server, and how similarlicensing within or across containers might or will arise. I'mcertainly expecting to have to license products that are baked into thecontainer, if they're not licensed system-wide. Which means thebiggest current differences are in server-wide licensing for the OS orthe products, and — if containers become ubiquitous — I just don't seeequally or potentially more expensive licenses for containers arising.DEC had system-wide and per-user licensing, per-core and per-socketlicensing, capacity on demand, and a plethora of other programs.TL;DR: Containers are a form of licensing arbitrage. Whether there'senough of an efficiency gain from containers and intro-OS sharingversus parallel VM guests to trade off the complexity of trying towrite OS and end-user code for and then keep apps from getting tangled,only testing will show.

Post by Stephen Hoffmanand the lack of partitioning support in other related tools needed toanalyze and maintain and repartition storage, and keeping track ofwhich volumes are mounted when the physical disk is to be yanked,

Post by Stephen Hoffmanthe documentation for it all. This is not complex, but — likegraphics support — there's more than a little code that's notimmediately apparent. So — like the hybrid 32- and 64-bit

Curiosity ...LD containers are usable on VMS. How, if such happens, do the VMSutilities work with such things? I haven't done much with LDcontainers, can't remember if the stuff implementing them does allsuch work.I could probably find out most answers, but, I am just so incredibly

lazy ..Kerry is extolling the virtues of here seems utterly indistinguishablefrom a CD or DVD containing an app, an InfoServer service offering adisk share, or a partition containing an app.OpenVMS has offered these capabilities for decades, and Pythoncurrently does exactly this using LD rather than dealing with thelimitations of what PCSI provides.

[snip..]

Something to consider .. each VMware guest OS is basically a single file on the SAN.

When they move a VM host to another system, they simply provide the pointer to the file on the other system, save process info and then restart the process with the file pointer on the other system.

A bit simplified, but that’s it in a nutshell.

Yes, there are no doubt big differences in terms of where OpenVMS LD is today, but the single file per guest OS is at the core of VMware arch and strategy.

VMDK file - VMDK (Virtual Machine Disk) is a file format that describes containers for virtual hard disk drives to be used in virtual machines.

How VMware dynamically transfers a Guest OS from one server to another with close to zero impact on clients:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMware_ESXi

"Live migration (vMotion) in ESX allows a virtual machine to move between two different hosts. Live storage migration (Storage vMotion) enables live migration of virtual disks on the fly. During vMotion Live Migration (vLM) of a running virtual machine (VM) the content of the (RAM) memory of the VM is sent from the running VM to the new VM (the instance on another host that will become the running VM after the vLM). The content of memory is by its nature changing all the time. ESX uses a system where the content is sent to the other VM and then it will check what data is changed and send that, each time smaller blocks. At the last moment it will very briefly 'freeze' the existing VM, transfer the last changes in the RAM content and then start the new VM. The intended effect of this process is to minimize the time during which the VM is suspended; in a best case this will be the time of the final transfer plus the time required to start the new VM"

Post by Kerry MainSomething to consider .. each VMware guest OS is basically a single file on the SAN.When they move a VM host to another system, they simply provide thepointer to the file on the other system, save process info and thenrestart the process with the file pointer on the other system.

That's the basis of containers, as well. Though containers requirereimplementing the isolation inherently provided by the VM and separateguest instances within the operating system, if you want to keep theapps from getting tangled. If the developers are willing to continuewith the usually home-grown and far too often manually-managed andnon-isolated implementation we've all been dealing with for the last~twenty years and with home-grown tools for upgrades and datamigrations, then using LD works, too.

Post by Kerry Main"Live migration (vMotion) in ESX allows a virtual machine to movebetween two different hosts.

OpenVMS tried to get there some years ago, but the run-time environmentwas too complex to migrate processes, and the environment to restart onanother server with full consistency requires application assistance.It'll be interesting to see whether OpenVMS can be migrated as a VMguest; a subset of supported OpenVMS configurations will probably workwith some caveats, but some SDN assistance will probably be required.

Post by Stephen Hoffman[...]OpenVMS tried to get there some years ago, but the run-time environmentwas too complex to migrate processes, and the environment to restart onanother server with full consistency requires application assistance.It'll be interesting to see whether OpenVMS can be migrated as a VMguest; a subset of supported OpenVMS configurations will probably workwith some caveats, but some SDN assistance will probably be required.

OpenVMS can be moved perfectly from one hypervisor host to another ifyou run it in one of the major emulators. Just tested this during thelast weekend - moved a VM with 2 CHARON-AXP instances (running as acluster) without any issues.

There are only rare cases where migration is not feasible, e.g. if anode running a database updates its caches in memory faster than VMwarecan copy memory contents to a different host. But this case probablyisn't VMS-specific.

Post by Stephen Hoffman[...]OpenVMS tried to get there some years ago, but the run-time environmentwas too complex to migrate processes, and the environment to restart onanother server with full consistency requires application assistance.It'll be interesting to see whether OpenVMS can be migrated as a VMguest; a subset of supported OpenVMS configurations will probably workwith some caveats, but some SDN assistance will probably be required.

OpenVMS can be moved perfectly from one hypervisor host to another ifyou run it in one of the major emulators. Just tested this during thelast weekend - moved a VM with 2 CHARON-AXP instances (running as acluster) without any issues.There are only rare cases where migration is not feasible, e.g. if anode running a database updates its caches in memory faster than VMwarecan copy memory contents to a different host. But this case probablyisn't VMS-specific.

As I stated, a subset of these migrations will probably work. Triedthis with a member of a cluster? With SAN storage active?

I fully expect that most any active system will have caches active andmight or will run afoul of that caveat you've mentioned, too.

Which means in aggregate we're back to the same sort of a "solution"that the storage folks have been trying out since the 1980s —clustering or continous backups at the hardware level, without hostintrospection — and that they've been failing.

If the VM has hooks to quiesce stuff — same mess as online backups, BTW— then this VM migration will be rather more reliable.

Coordination with host activity and the related introspection are hardproblems, so they get ignored, so we get mostly-solutions thatmostly-work.

Interestingly, history tends to be a hard problem in IT, too. Pastfailures and why those failures occurred is not something most of usspend much time learning about. We often either ignore those, or we"cargo cult" the solutions we have previously used.

Post by Stephen Hoffman[...]OpenVMS tried to get there some years ago, but the run-timeenvironment was too complex to migrate processes, and the environmentto restart on another server with full consistency requiresapplication assistance. It'll be interesting to see whether OpenVMScan be migrated as a VM guest; a subset of supported OpenVMSconfigurations will probably work with some caveats, but some SDNassistance will probably be required.

OpenVMS can be moved perfectly from one hypervisor host to another ifyou run it in one of the major emulators. Just tested this during thelast weekend - moved a VM with 2 CHARON-AXP instances (running as acluster) without any issues.There are only rare cases where migration is not feasible, e.g. if anode running a database updates its caches in memory faster thanVMware can copy memory contents to a different host. But this caseprobably isn't VMS-specific.

As I stated, a subset of these migrations will probably work. Triedthis with a member of a cluster? With SAN storage active?

I'll be able to test that soon at another cuatomer's site.

Post by Stephen HoffmanI fully expect that most any active system will have caches active andmight or will run afoul of that caveat you've mentioned, too.

With vMotion, the caches go with the moved instance.

To solve the problem I mentioned above (fast updates on large parts ofthe memory), there are two ways:

- use faster interconnects so memory contents can be copied over faster(we get improvements here all the time)

Post by Stephen HoffmanWhich means in aggregate we're back to the same sort of a "solution"that the storage folks have been trying out since the 1980s — clusteringor continous backups at the hardware level, without host introspection —and that they've been failing.If the VM has hooks to quiesce stuff — same mess as online backups, BTW— then this VM migration will be rather more reliable.

I agree that backup is a completely different topic. Without quiescing(or shutting down') the applications, you never get a 100% "clean" backup.

Post by Stephen HoffmanCoordination with host activity and the related introspection are hardproblems, so they get ignored, so we get mostly-solutions that mostly-work.

which are "good enough" in many cases. You don't need a Corvette's brakefor a sub-compact.

Post by Stephen HoffmanInterestingly, history tends to be a hard problem in IT, too. Pastfailures and why those failures occurred is not something most of usspend much time learning about. We often either ignore those, or we"cargo cult" the solutions we have previously used.

Post by Stephen HoffmanOpenVMS uses up to five GPT partitions. It's also not aparticularly complicated story, either. It's because OpenVMS doesnot support disk partitioning, and I hacked together a very nastyworkaround to account for the boot and system drivers not includingthe necessary integer math in the lower reaches of the I/O path.

That includes the lack of partitioning support in MOUNT and DISMOUNT,and the lack of partitioning support in other related tools needed toanalyze and maintain and repartition storage, and keeping track ofwhich volumes are mounted when the physical disk is to be yanked, andthe documentation for it all. This is not complex, but — likegraphics support — there's more than a little code that's notimmediately apparent. So — like the hybrid 32- and 64-bitaddressing design, or various other compromises toupward-compatibility — tradeoffs are made. That's part of shippingmost any complex product, too.

Curiosity ...LD containers are usable on VMS. How, if such happens, do the VMSutilities work with such things? I haven't done much with LDcontainers, can't remember if the stuff implementing them does allsuch work.I could probably find out most answers, but, I am just so incredibly lazy ..

Kerry is extolling the virtues of here seems utterly indistinguishablefrom a CD or DVD containing an app, an InfoServer service offering adisk share, or a partition containing an app.OpenVMS has offered these capabilities for decades, and Python currentlydoes exactly this using LD rather than dealing with the limitations ofwhat PCSI provides.Using containers or using LD certainly includes the limitations andproblems inherently involved with trying to keep apps separate, addingapp-specific users for integrated server processes, preventing logicalname collisions, allocating privileges or IP addresses or ports orwhatever, restricting access to other containers or to random parts ofthe system or network environment the app has no business accessing,verifying whether the data and the apps are signed by a trusted entity,licensing whatever components are integrated, dependencies andintegration and access across multiple distros when there's a suite ofrelated products or a product with dependencies on some other container,getting the startups coordinated and sequenced, etc.Then there's further along the path, of maintaining an inventory ofcontainers arrived or tested or ready for deployment or archived forfuture use, and tools to add or upgrade or remove or relocate the appsin the containers, and to deal with the bureaucratic baggage such aslicensing. Beyond isolation and reproducibility and the rest, many ofthe folks also expect better automation around using the containers.All certainly possible, but keeping semi-trusted apps from gettingtangled isn't easy. Semi-trusted? Sure, you might trust who you gotthe app from, but what happens if there's a mistake or a vulnerabilityin the app code, or some dependency underneath the container or the DVDor whatever; how to you isolate the damage?If there's a significant difference between container sprawl and VMsprawl, I just don't see it. There are differences in how tools orlayered products or databases are licensed to a server, and how similarlicensing within or across containers might or will arise. I'mcertainly expecting to have to license products that are baked into thecontainer, if they're not licensed system-wide. Which means thebiggest current differences are in server-wide licensing for the OS orthe products, and — if containers become ubiquitous — I just don't seeequally or potentially more expensive licenses for containers arising.DEC had system-wide and per-user licensing, per-core and per-socketlicensing, capacity on demand, and a plethora of other programs.TL;DR: Containers are a form of licensing arbitrage. Whether there'senough of an efficiency gain from containers and intro-OS sharing versusparallel VM guests to trade off the complexity of trying to write OS andend-user code for and then keep apps from getting tangled, only testingwill show.

Nice explanation Steve. But, now back to my question, about booting an OS thatis in a container file, as if it was on a disk (or other) device, and using VMSutilities, such as MOUNT, with them. Remember that question?

Post by David FrobleBut, now back to my question, about booting an OSthat is in a container file, as if it was on a disk (or other) device, andusing VMS utilities, such as MOUNT, with them. Remember that question?:-)

Since the host OS/VM environment presents the container file tothe guest OS just as if it had been a hardware disk, everythingworks just as usual. You INIT, MOUNT, ANA/DISK and so on justas if it had been a hardware disk.

The only difference today is that the current LD containersare MOUNT'ed from within VMS after it has been booted, youcan not boot directly from them.

I can MOUNT and "use" the VMS 8.4 ISO container file using LDtoday, but you can not boot directly from it, becuse there isnothing today that presents the file as a device to the VMSboot routines. That is what the VM does.

Post by David FrobleNice explanation Steve. But, now back to my question, about booting anOS that is in a container file, as if it was on a disk (or other)device, and using VMS utilities, such as MOUNT, with them. Rememberthat question?

I believe that is what most virtualization software that runs on ahost OS instead of directly on the metal does.

Post by David FrobleNice explanation Steve. But, now back to my question, about booting anOS that is in a container file, as if it was on a disk (or other)device, and using VMS utilities, such as MOUNT, with them. Rememberthat question?:-)

Bootstrap of a disk image can happen indirectly via InfoServer and thenetwork bootstrap path. That's how I've booted various installers onremote Itanium systems, for instance — set up one local system as anInfoServer, load the kits on that, boot the other boxes via thenetwork. There's no direct support for bootstraps from a disk image,though a two-stage boot as was used on some VAX systems aeons ago wouldalso be feasible. No support for booting from partitions in OpenVMS,either. Booting via EFI would also be feasible with some added filesystem work, as EFI already supports access to the FAT file system inthe base distro and various EFI implementations have additions supportaccess into other file systems. Or booting from a partition, as EFIalready knows about those. Nothing (technically) precludes EFIaccessing ODS-2 or ODS-5 or VAFS and performing a container boot fromthat. The bootstrap on OpenVMS is a hack that presents a partition toEFI and presents as a contiguous, no-move disk file to OpenVMS. Asfor MOUNT and the rest, the LD giblets look and work as regular disks.Following further down the rabbit hole, containers are not necessarilywhole operating systems — that'd incur the licensing charges that folksare seeking to arbitrage — they can be self-contained packages of appsand related dependencies, though it's not very far from a containerwith an operating system and booting that.https://pewpewthespells.com/blog/setup_docker_on_mac.html

Post by Stephen HoffmanUp to five partitions are present for the boot and (when present)maintenance partition, with up to three additional partitionsinterspersed — how many depends on where the boot and maintenancepartitions are located relative to the beginning, to each other, and toend of the available disk storage — these to protect the entirety ofthe disk from being considered unallocated by console-level diskinformation and partitioning tools, and all this hackery to allowOpenVMS to consider the disk as a single unpartitioned unit of storage.(There's added hackery here around the default boot file systemsupport being FAT for EFI/UEFI. While adding a file system moduleinto UEFI to support partitions containing ODS-2/ODS-5/VAFS bootvolumes would be technically possible, it's more effort and morecomplexity.)

Things are much different on x86 now that we always boot from memory disk. There are always three partitions.

Also, the Boot Manager only has to know about one file structure, now and into the future, because the only file it ever reads is the memory disk file which VMS creates. (We chose ODS5). Same goes for the primitive file system in SYSBOOT; it only has to read the memory disk file. We don't encounter the structure of the boot device itself until it is mounted with the runtime drivers and the appropriate file system code - ODS2, ODS5, new file system, etc. This was one of the 3 main goals of the "always boot from memory disk" project - never need to touch the primitive file system again.

Post by Stephen HoffmanUp to five partitions are present for the boot and (when present)maintenance partition, with up to three additional partitionsinterspersed — how many depends on where the boot and maintenancepartitions are located relative to the beginning, to each other, and toend of the available disk storage — these to protect the entirety ofthe disk from being considered unallocated by console-level diskinformation and partitioning tools, and all this hackery to allowOpenVMS to consider the disk as a single unpartitioned unit of storage.(There's added hackery here around the default boot file systemsupport being FAT for EFI/UEFI. While adding a file system moduleinto UEFI to support partitions containing ODS-2/ODS-5/VAFS bootvolumes would be technically possible, it's more effort and morecomplexity.)

Things are much different on x86 now that we always boot from memorydisk. There are always three partitions.Also, the Boot Manager only has to know about one file structure, nowand into the future, because the only file it ever reads is the memorydisk file which VMS creates. (We chose ODS5). Same goes for theprimitive file system in SYSBOOT; it only has to read the memory diskfile. We don't encounter the structure of the boot device itself untilit is mounted with the runtime drivers and the appropriate file systemcode - ODS2, ODS5, new file system, etc. This was one of the 3 maingoals of the "always boot from memory disk" project - never need totouch the primitive file system again.

Somebody will probably be ripping that out and replacing it with aconsole-native-boot implementation (eventually), but the memory diskapproach will server as a quite workable compromise and a goodintermediate step... Once the rest of the necessary environment withinOpenVMS is in place to perform that migration, but that won't be forfive or ten years, if then. There are certainly very good reasons tonot go to a console native boot and to use the memory boot, but — likemost of these sequences and decisions and trade-offs — the results tendto be more complex. It's unfortunate, but necessary.

Post by Dirk MunkRunning it on a VM would be better. You could use any notebook/desktopthat is supported by the VM, and you could run Linux or Windows at thesame time.

But then you would also have to run the underlying OS.

Post by Dirk MunkThat would give you a browser also, VMS has no browser.A long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

An entire OS and various layered products are ported to a completelydifferent hardware platform---doable. A modern browser---undoable?Maybe there is a middle path: a browser which doesn't support all addonsbut is good enough for 95%.

Some things to realize, like them or not.

Can VMS be ported to x86? Not done yet. Hopefully it will happen. If so,there might be enough revenue to make it worth while.

A browser is a user interface, normally for a workstation or personal use typeof system. VSI has sort of mentioned that for now VMS is to be considered a"server" OS. It will be a great accomplishment if they can do that little thing.

Can a really great browser be implemented? Sure. All it takes is money. Yougot the money to do that? It's easy to suggest spending, when it's someoneelse's money.

This entire discussion reminds me of Jack Kennedy. He was once heard to say,"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourcountry". Perhaps we are at such a time with VSI. If you want VMS in thefuture, perhaps it's time for VMS users to "ask not what VSI can do for you, askwhat you can do for VMS"?

What's stopping Philip from developing a "modern browser" to run on x86 VMS?

Post by David FrobleThis entire discussion reminds me of Jack Kennedy. He was once heard tosay, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do foryour country". Perhaps we are at such a time with VSI. If you want VMSin the future, perhaps it's time for VMS users to "ask not what VSI cando for you, ask what you can do for VMS"?

That is unfortunately one of VMS'es problems.

There is a lot of people wanting something.

But most of those people do not want to or do not have time or skillsnecessary to do some things.

VMS support for various open source projects has been suffering fromthis for many years now.

Post by David FrobleThis entire discussion reminds me of Jack Kennedy. He was once heard tosay, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do foryour country". Perhaps we are at such a time with VSI. If you want VMSin the future, perhaps it's time for VMS users to "ask not what VSI cando for you, ask what you can do for VMS"?

That is unfortunately one of VMS'es problems.There is a lot of people wanting something.But most of those people do not want to or do not have time or skillsnecessary to do some things.VMS support for various open source projects has been suffering fromthis for many years now.Arne

I would certainly like to be able to help out with open source on VMS but I lack the skills

A couple of problems overall though

1. Skills requiredIt seems to me, that the whole open source paradigm on VMS is so different to say picking up a package on Linux that you quickly run into porting issues. The depth of technical knowledge required to solve these porting issues are such that it involves in-depth knowledge

2. Build environmentsOpen source typically is not commercial unless coupled with service.Developing on VMS requires a VMS environment kitted out with up to date compilers and OS.There are Alpha emulators available for free and HP will lend you fairly up to date compilers but VMS has moved on.I hear talk of, but as yet await eagerly a VSI hobbyist program (especially now that Alpha is also under their wing).Itanium emulators that can boot VMS are as frequent as a squadron of pigs flying over my place at midday! and this is never going to change, so forget Itanium.This leaves people hanging out for x86 and hoping that a hobbyist program also pops out of the woodwork

3. Mentorship / training / documentationI'm a big advocate of mentoring. It's the fastest way to transfer knowledge and transfer any inbuilt philosophy of design of a system also. It takes time, both of the apprentice and of the mentor - lots of time!Mentorship goes beyond training - it's akin to the ideas one picks up if you listen hard enough to the experienced people on this forum. Compressed years of wisdom and experience in choice sentence's. It takes time to 'hear it'.There is no mentorship program available and I doubt the folks here have the time to invest in one either, most of them have full time roles to look after and a few have had personal hardships to deal with to boot.Official training cost big dollars, way too much for me. I did lots of it many years ago when companies valued such things but these days they seem reluctant to invest in it. Training as in fronting up to a classroom to me doesn't hold a lot of value beyond locking yourself away in a room and progressing through a workbook.I looked at MOOCS and the feasibility of setting up an Intro to VMS under one (why not, Microsoft are using this platform to push it's products) but I don't have the time or equipment to test all the examples one would want to take people through if conducting training.Documentation. Enough said... Until VSI get their own site up and running we are stuck with HP's last rendition which doesn't cover anything under VSI and sadly has dropped most of the html format.

I think a mentorship program OR MOOC style course would give the biggest return on time invested to help bring others up to speed on VMS open source porting - anyone going to raise their hand to run such a program? I'll sign up and I'd also put some coin towards being a participant too

Post by Arne VajhÃ¸jThere is a lot of people wanting something.But most of those people do not want to or do not have time or skillsnecessary to do some things.VMS support for various open source projects has been suffering fromthis for many years now.Arne

I would certainly like to be able to help out with open source on VMS but I lack the skills

Not all skills required are programming. Helping out with proofreading, web page organization, etetera, are also helpful.

Post by IanDA couple of problems overall though1. Skills requiredIt seems to me, that the whole open source paradigm on VMS is sodifferent to say picking up a package on Linux that you quickly run intoporting issues. The depth of technical knowledge required to solve theseporting issues are such that it involves in-depth knowledge

That is a matter of how you approach things. And most GNU projects arevery consistent on what they do for the generation of configure orgnulib that they are using. So once a solution is found, it carriesover to many other projects.

Help is needed to keep GNV applications that have been ported to makesure that the fixes needed are using common code, and to document whathacks were used.

There are skills needed, and it turns out that knowing how to debug aconfigure script and maintain a GNU building environment is a skill indemand, and seems to pay very well. My last two jobs were in Linuxenvironments because of the skills learned getting the GNV environmentimproved on VMS.

What I am doing is also what Bill Pedersen has stated. I am creating anenvironment where you can start with the unmodified OpenSourcedistribution and build it on VMS with no manual edits.

Once you understand how to set that up, projects can be ported veryquickly. We had shell shock fixed bash kits out with in 48 hours of theofficial patch releases.

What I am not doing is taking the time to get the VMS specific changesmerged back to the upstream repositories, if the project does notcurrently support VMS. It takes a lot of time to do that, and that issomething that help is needed. It takes someone that can learn what therequirements of the upstream repository.

The other thing that I am doing is trying to make sure that the portsare as complete as possible. Many open source ports to VMS areincomplete where functionality is missing.

One of the hardest things is usually to update a port where there is aVMS/DCL behavior that is in use that conflicts with what is needed touse the same utility on GNV. In many times this can be resolved,

In a lot of cases the existing VMS code is either obsolete for VMS 5.4only or earlier, or was never even correct for the original port.

Post by IanD2. Build environmentsDeveloping on VMS requires a VMS environment kitted out with up to date compilers and OS.There are Alpha emulators available for free and HP will lend youfairly up to date compilers but VMS has moved on.I hear talk of, but as yet await eagerly a VSI hobbyist program(especially now that Alpha is also under their wing).

My current build targets are VAX 7.3 where easily done, Alpha VMS8.3/8.4, and IA64 8.4, all HP Hobbyist media distributions. While thisis missing some ECOs, the resulting code will run on VSI releases.

VSI has also released some evaluation kits.

Post by IanDItanium emulators that can boot VMS are as frequent as a squadron ofpigs flying over my place at midday! and this is never going to change,so forget Itanium.

For most projects, an Itanium uses the same source code as Alpha.

For the updated GNV packages, committing a source code change to therepository triggers a build on my Jenkins system within 24 hours.

So if someone just has Alpha 8.3 and gets a fix pushed, everything up tobuilding a kit will get tested on Alpha 8.3, 8.4, Itanium 8.4, and ifthe project supports a VAX build, VAX 7.3.

Currently I have no way to make the Jenkins web pages available to thepublic. I am looking at various solutions to that.The easiest may be to send an e-mail update of successful builds to theGNV developer list.

Post by IanDThis leaves people hanging out for x86 and hoping that a hobbyistprogram also pops out of the woodwork

x86 is a ways away for hobbyists. For hobbyists, some of this is justkeeping the old equipment or emulations of it running.

Hopefully a lot of the CRTL hacks that are needed for porting will goaway with VMS 9.x. I expect that for VAX/Alpha/Itanium, if it will runthe the media for hobbyists it will run anywhere.

The power bill is what is the issue for keeping the older hardwarerunning now. I have required and eithernet controlled power switch, anda future project will be to see how fast I can get the physical hardwareto boot on demand when needed for a build, or for a project to use.

Post by IanD3. Mentorship / training / documentation I'm a big advocate ofmentoring. It's the fastest way to transfer knowledge and transferany inbuilt philosophy of design of a system also. It takes time,both of the apprentice and of the mentor - lots of time!Mentorship goes beyond training - it's akin to the ideas one picksup if you listen hard enough to the experienced people on this forum.Compressed years of wisdom and experience in choice sentence's. Ittakes time to 'hear it'.There is no mentorship program available and I doubt the folks herehave the time to invest in one either, most of them have fulltime roles to look after and a few have had personal hardships todeal with to boot.

Yes. I have been through 3 layoffs while working on VMS Open Source.Each one resulted in a higher paying job, just not in VMS anymore.

But each layoff has also cost time in working on the ports.

But it was because I learned these skills, I am currently employed.

Post by IanDOfficial training cost big dollars, way too much for me. I did lotsof it many years ago when companies valued such things but these days theyseem reluctant to invest in it. Training as in fronting up to aclassroom to me doesn't hold a lot of value beyond locking yourself awayin a room and progressing through a workbook.

It is my understanding that some of the commercial VMS training is quitegood.

For OpenSource though a good way is to get into building it anddeploying it and using the free tutorials on the wild wild web.

We have WIKIs on Sourceforge GNV and VMS-PORTS projects, but littlecontributions to them.

Post by IanDI think a mentorship program OR MOOC style course would give thebiggest return on time invested to help bring others up to speed onVMS open source porting - anyone going to raise their hand to runsuch a program? I'll sign up and I'd also put some coin towards beinga participant too

The closest we have is Bill's conference calls. And the participationon them has been dropping off.

Post by David FrobleThis entire discussion reminds me of Jack Kennedy. He was once heard tosay, "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do foryour country". Perhaps we are at such a time with VSI. If you want VMSin the future, perhaps it's time for VMS users to "ask not what VSI cando for you, ask what you can do for VMS"?

Post by David FrobleCan a really great browser be implemented? Sure. All it takes ismoney. You got the money to do that? It's easy to suggest spending,when it's someone else's money.

Time and money.

Post by David FrobleThis entire discussion reminds me of Jack Kennedy. He was once heard to say,"ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for yourcountry". Perhaps we are at such a time with VSI. If you want VMS in thefuture, perhaps it's time for VMS users to "ask not what VSI can dofor you, ask what you can do for VMS"?

That one rather falls down when your own government is trying to exportyour job.

Post by Dirk MunkRunning it on a VM would be better. You could use any notebook/desktopthat is supported by the VM, and you could run Linux or Windows at thesame time. That would give you a browser also, VMS has no browser.A long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

I am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).

By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)

As for current browser options, I have in the past suggested maybeporting Dillo to VMS, but it has no Javascript support and thesedays even the web server interface on simple devices tends to requireJavascript.

Simon.

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Post by Simon ClubleyI am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)

Post by Simon ClubleyI am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)

I'm clueless. What is happening to Firefox?

Support for XUL based extensions is being removed from Firefox.

The replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.

It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.

Simon,

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Post by Simon ClubleyI am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)

I'm clueless. What is happening to Firefox?

Support for XUL based extensions is being removed from Firefox.The replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.Simon,--Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

OK, but whether that is a good thing or a badthing rather depends on what folk want from abrowser. Is a browser a device independentexecution environment (a modern descendentof UCSD Pascal and/or ANDF and a whole lotmore), with all the 'fun' (CVEs etc) whichthat implies? This has been an increasinglyimportant (but often ignored) question asmore and more people understandably usevarious flavours of script blocker.

Or is a browser sometimes just a limited (andhopefully more robust) device independentpresentation environment, a modern replacementfor VT100 character graphics and ReGIS and alittle bit more? That need still exists, someuse cases were discussed a few weeks ago here.

I still use Firefox at the moment but it doesappear to be on a slippery slope away fromrelevance.

The idea that a self contained PDP11 emulatorcan run inside a browser is impressive, insome strange kind of way. At least one ofthose was around in 2011. Is that what browsersshould really be about?

Simple is often a good starting point for secure(for various meanings of secure).

Post by Simon ClubleyI am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)

I'm clueless. What is happening to Firefox?

Support for XUL based extensions is being removed from Firefox.The replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.Simon,

Binary extensions will indeed be removed from Firefox *and* Seamonkey.Both browsers are very closely related.

Binary extensions are already impossible with the 64 bit versions ofthese browsers, with the exception of Flash and some similar Microsoftextension (forgot the name).

The Java extension for instance doesn't exist for the 64 bit version ofthese two browsers.

Post by Simon ClubleyI am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)

I'm clueless. What is happening to Firefox?

Support for XUL based extensions is being removed from Firefox.The replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.Simon,

Binary extensions will indeed be removed from Firefox *and* Seamonkey.Both browsers are very closely related.Binary extensions are already impossible with the 64 bit versions ofthese browsers, with the exception of Flash and some similar Microsoftextension (forgot the name).The Java extension for instance doesn't exist for the 64 bit version ofthese two browsers.

And the lack of a Java extension in a browser in 2017 andbeyond is a bad thing, or is a good thing, or maybe dependson the circumstances? Is it the *idea* of an interestingextension that's a good thing? Does the reality match up?

I quite like the *concept* of add-ons and extensions. I'm*a lot* less keen on many of the implementations I've seen.

Further reading (Mozilla's point of view, with developercomments):https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/11/23/add-ons-in-2017/

Post by Simon ClubleyI am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)

I'm clueless. What is happening to Firefox?

Support for XUL based extensions is being removed from Firefox.The replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.Simon,

Binary extensions will indeed be removed from Firefox *and* Seamonkey.Both browsers are very closely related.Binary extensions are already impossible with the 64 bit versions ofthese browsers, with the exception of Flash and some similar Microsoftextension (forgot the name).The Java extension for instance doesn't exist for the 64 bit version ofthese two browsers.

And the lack of a Java extension in a browser in 2017 andbeyond is a bad thing, or is a good thing, or maybe dependson the circumstances? Is it the *idea* of an interestingextension that's a good thing? Does the reality match up?I quite like the *concept* of add-ons and extensions. I'm*a lot* less keen on many of the implementations I've seen.Further reading (Mozilla's point of view, with developerhttps://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/11/23/add-ons-in-2017/

With regard to Java, Oracle itself isn't supporting Java applets anymore, and deprecated their use over a year ago. You should use Web Startinstead.

Post by j***@yahoo.co.ukAnd the lack of a Java extension in a browser in 2017 andbeyond is a bad thing, or is a good thing, or maybe dependson the circumstances? Is it the *idea* of an interestingextension that's a good thing? Does the reality match up?I quite like the *concept* of add-ons and extensions. I'm*a lot* less keen on many of the implementations I've seen.

I hope you are not confusing the binary plugins with all theadditional functionality which the Firefox addons give you.

Post by j***@yahoo.co.ukFurther reading (Mozilla's point of view, with developerhttps://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2016/11/23/add-ons-in-2017/

With regard to Java, Oracle itself isn't supporting Java applets anymore, and deprecated their use over a year ago. You should use Web Startinstead.You can still use and program add-ons, but not *binary* extensions.

No, you will not be able to write Firefox addons any longer tothe level of functionality which you have been able to do inthe past and in the process _all_ the existing XUL basedextensions will no longer work as-is and many will simply notbe implementable in the new extension infrastructure.

Please READ the article at the above link _BEFORE_ replying and_PLEASE_ the comments for that article if you are still in any doubt.

And people, please stop confusing binary plugins with Firefoxextension addons. They are two very different things.

Simon.

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Post by Simon ClubleySupport for XUL based extensions is being removed from Firefox.The replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.

Binary extensions will indeed be removed from Firefox *and* Seamonkey.Both browsers are very closely related.

I said _nothing_ about binary plugins but only talked about XUL extensions.

Post by Dirk MunkBinary extensions are already impossible with the 64 bit versions ofthese browsers, with the exception of Flash and some similar Microsoftextension (forgot the name).The Java extension for instance doesn't exist for the 64 bit version ofthese two browsers.

These plugins are absolutely nothing to do with XUL extensions.

What Mozilla are doing is to make all the XUL extensions (for example,NoScript, DownThemAll, Classic Theme Restorer, any XUL based versionsof the Ad blockers, etc) all unusable in Firefox after the end of thisyear.

Some extensions (ie: NoScript) will be able to continue in a re-writtenform in next year's version of Firefox, but many others, such as ClassicTheme Restorer, simply cannot be implemented in the new extensionframework (due to lack of functionality) even if the authors wereinclined to spend their time rewriting their extensions.

Simon.

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Post by Simon ClubleyThe replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.

Interestingly, for reasons similar to why the containers beingdiscussed in various threads increasingly involve implementations withbetter protection — and why OpenVMS would need work around isolatingapps, for that matter — because there's insufficient isolation betweenthe pieces and parts, and too many ways for the contents of the pluginsto do things not in the best interests of the users. Sandboxes andrelated pieces, automatic startup handling, mechanisms to prevent appsfrom accessing components they shouldn't, digital signatures andprovisioning, etc. We are operating in much more hostile times, andare increasingly dealing with even legitimate software that is foundvulnerable and with consequences ranging from denials of service toremote command execution, and when the security breaches and theexposures escalate far more quickly and far more widely. We're waypast when ACLs and identifiers and unencrypted data and unsandboxed andunrestricted access is viable...

One of the claims is that XUL is incompatible with the multi-processmodel that Firefox is moving to. Unfortunately, if that were the onlyreason, then Mozilla would have at least made sure that the replacementframework had all the functionality of the XUL framework before rippingout XUL.

The real reason is that the current Firefox developers only care aboutmaking Firefox a clone of Chrome and don't care about the existingFirefox power users who take full advantage of what the Firefoxecosystem currently offers.

It's basically the same kind of thinking that gave us Gnome 3 asa replacement for Gnome 2.

Post by Simon ClubleyThe replacement functionality is incompatible with existing XULextensions and only supports a subset of XUL functionality.It simply will not be possible to implement some existing popularAdd-ons in the new Firefox even if the author was inclined tospend the effort to write a new version of their Add-on.

Does this affect Live-Click?

If this is the addon you are talking about:

http://projects.protej.com/liveclick/comments/liveclick_150/

then the following quote from that page will be of interest:

|Please Note: Due to changes coming soon to Firefox, LiveClick may not|be compatible beyond the next Firefox ESR (currently Fx45).

This quote ties in with the fact that the next ESR version will bethe last one with XUL extension support and will be supported forseveral months after the mainstream Firefox branch has dropped XULsupport.

Your only chance is that the replacement extension framework offersthe functionality that your addon author needs and that they aremotivated to rewrite their addon to use it.

Simon.

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

Post by Dirk MunkRunning it on a VM would be better. You could use any notebook/desktopthat is supported by the VM, and you could run Linux or Windows at thesame time. That would give you a browser also, VMS has no browser.A long time ago VMS had Mozilla and its successor Seamonkey as browser,Today that is no longer viable. Maintaining a browser with the necessaryadd-ons is very labour intensive and expensive. No need for that, butyou do need a browser on your notebook.

I am actually seriously considering Seamonkey (or Pale Moon) as oneof my options when Firefox becomes unusable at the end of the year(and when Classic Theme Restorer (which provides a usable Firefox UI)will also stop working).By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in thebrowser market thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybea new portable web browser might even come out of it and maybeit might be portable to VMS. :-)As for current browser options, I have in the past suggested maybeporting Dillo to VMS, but it has no Javascript support and thesedays even the web server interface on simple devices tends to requireJavascript.Simon.

Why don't you 'seriously consider' boot to geko B2G and the billionswasted on FirefoxOS which may or may not appear as some crappy TV OS.

When will all you wankers stop wasting time on the VMS-client mirage???

By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in the browsermarket thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybe a new portableweb browser might even come out of it and maybe it might be portable toVMS. :-)

Mozilla is updating their design for better security and reliability,and removing bits and pieces that tend to cause crashes andvulnerabilities. The Tor Browser Bundle (TBB) is a very big targetfor attacks, for instance.

Over on OpenVMS, I'd expect (hope) to see giblets added akin to cURLand HTTPie and suchlike, integrated Apache, and some related and commondependencies such as libsodium, maybe SQLite and PostgreSQL. At most.Bits and pieces that a server would need for REST and for securenetwork communications. Not a web browser much past Lynx. Yes, it'dbe nice to have a readily-updated WebKit browser or such. But "OpenVMSis for servers", as has been the refrain.

By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in the browsermarket thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybe a new portableweb browser might even come out of it and maybe it might be portable toVMS. :-)

Mozilla is updating their design for better security and reliability,and removing bits and pieces that tend to cause crashes andvulnerabilities. The Tor Browser Bundle (TBB) is a very big targetfor attacks, for instance.

Unfortunately Stephen, given the lack of functionality in the replacementframework, that's kind of like saying we will fix Windows security issuesby making everyone go back to MS-DOS.

Simon.

--Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFPMicrosoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world

By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in the browsermarket thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybe a new portableweb browser might even come out of it and maybe it might be portable toVMS. :-)

Mozilla is updating their design for better security and reliability,and removing bits and pieces that tend to cause crashes andvulnerabilities. The Tor Browser Bundle (TBB) is a very big targetfor attacks, for instance.

Unfortunately Stephen, given the lack of functionality in the replacementframework, that's kind of like saying we will fix Windows security issuesby making everyone go back to MS-DOS.

By this time next year, there's going to be major churn in the browsermarket thanks to Mozilla's stupidity. Who knows, maybe a new portableweb browser might even come out of it and maybe it might be portable toVMS. :-)

Mozilla is updating their design for better security and reliability,and removing bits and pieces that tend to cause crashes andvulnerabilities. The Tor Browser Bundle (TBB) is a very big targetfor attacks, for instance.

Unfortunately Stephen, given the lack of functionality in thereplacement framework, that's kind of like saying we will fix Windowssecurity issues by making everyone go back to MS-DOS.

OpenVMS needs some work before it becomes more easily feasible to portvarious open-source to the platform, and the open source communitiesare presently moving faster than the OpenVMS community can port.Increasingly faster, from what I've seen of it in recent years,including the need to push out security patches and to integrateremediation efforts into the platforms and tools. But I digress.

A different comparison than MS-DOS would be continuing to allow accessto problematic and insecure frameworks, and the associated uproar thatarose around Windows Vista; when Microsoft got rather more seriousabout security and stability. (Yes, they still have issues. Buthaving been looking at the lengths and complexities of the exploitchains now in use, Windows security is far better than it used to be.But they're still one of the biggest targets this side of Android andiOS, so the folks in Redmond will continue to have to work on security.)

This is the same sort of consternation that'll arise within the OpenVMScommunity if (when?) VSI decides to move to more modern and moreresistant-to-brute-forcing cryptographic password hashes and to amodern LDAP and Kerberos-based login and deprecate Purdy and the SYSUAFmess, and thus disrupt compatibility for apps that make direct accessto the effected constructs, too.

As for alternative browsers? Edge reportedly does quite well thesedays, not that I've used Microsoft Windows in some years. Or maybethere are enough updates to OpenVMS to allow somebody ports Chrome?(They've been working to isolate and secure that browser, too.) Orswitch to macOS and Safari or Brave.

But I don't expect OpenVMS to be a desktop. It was a pain to useOpenVMS for that a decade ago — and I knew and still know how to dothat — and the delta between what's offered and what's expected byfolks has only increased. Folks not steeped in the command line andtext files and non-MIME-MCS-mail as the user interface, that is.

Post by Stephen HoffmanAs for alternative browsers? Edge reportedly does quite well thesedays, not that I've used Microsoft Windows in some years.

<https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/02/high-severity-vulnerability-in-edgeie-is-third-unpatched-msft-bug-this-month/>Maybe will be again tomorrow or the next day. As you said, things move fast these days.

Ayup. Expect to find those in Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Brave,OpenVMS, and elsewhere, too.

If you're at a software vendor or otherwise operating with securityresponsibilities, get onto the security and disclosure lists, if you'renot already on them.

Yes, some of the bugs disclosed also apply to OpenVMS.

Also start pondering how you can test and deliver and inventory anddeploy your code — updates, security patches, or otherwise — morequickly.